Posted on 12/18/2013 8:52:25 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It takes a lot of words to defend and spin the indefensible and to protect the lies.
A lot of pseudo-scientific prattle, twaddle, and spewage.
If you really believe in it, live like you do.
Stop driving cars.
Stop flying in airplanes.
In fact, stop doing anything that produces CO2, including breathing.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Step 1: confuse the issue by calling it climate change (which is uncontroversial) from HUMAN GENERATED CO2 climate change (which is what the fight is about).
This misdirection is analogous to their treatment of the stem cell fight. NO ONE had a problem with stem cell research except if you had to kill a baby to get it. But they always ignored the baby killing dimension.
Nice try, Salon.
It’s always enjoyable watching journalism majors deal with the subjects that caused them to sink to the level which forced them to pursue journalism in college.
My short course on your short course:
1. The physics of GW doesn’t work. Not now. Not ever.
2. The models don’t work. Didn’t then. Don’t now.
3. You might try to look up the meaning of “correlation”.
4. You might try to get someone with a little knowledge of math to try and get your little minds to get a grasp on the meaning of “principal component analysis” and why your so-called “climate scientists” evidently skipped - or failed - that class.
5. You might try to explain why periods in which the average temp was much higher than it is now were much better periods for humanity. (Simple summary for libs - warm is better than cold. Much better.)
6. Oh yeah, where’s your reporting on the fact that the so-called “heating” has stopped?
In summary, please, deal only with things you can understand...such as...er...uh...
“It takes a lot of words to defend and spin the indefensible and to protect the lies. “
I was just thinking that seeing the article. Anytime that much has to be said then I know it is a twist of logic and lies.
The author is from Scientific American and this is published (reprinted?) in Salon.
One way to shut down a climate alarmist:
What are the current calibration standards for climate data collection stations? What percentage of stations adhere to those standards? At what level of uncertainty are the data points measured?
What is the level of uncertainty for data points from 25 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years ago?
How about the guestimates from thousands of years ago?
What, then, is the uncertainty of your predictions given the uncertainty of your data points? Why aren’t those ever included in your predictions?
If your predictions are within the uncertainty of your measurements, then they are insignificant. This is basic high school science.
This reminds me of the Pope commanding Galileo to repudiate his heliocentric beliefs, which allegedly resulted in him muttering “and yet it moves.” And yet, it isn’t warming.
You cant... period. You would have more luck talking to the wall...
Too much CO2?
Grab them by the windpipe til their eyes roll white.
“Better?”
Reddit has banned “climate deniers” from their science forum, even scientific studies on the Mauder minimum causing the recent drop in temperatures world wide.
Stopped being a relatively honest journal quite a while ago.
At least since Clinton, probably even during Bush41.
Yes. “Deniers” have to be silenced because they confuse people and things are too dangerous to allow confusion.
But they never shut up.
Not many honest science journals left.
These recommendations are based upon the false assumption that the liberal would think and act rationally.
The real deniers are the warmists... they try to deny data that shows clearly that despite rising CO2 levels that the world has not warmed in nearly twenty years. Of course this contradicts the predictions of all of their computer models.
Incredibly the data showing the lack of warming comes from government entities who know that their budgets depend on continued warming... so the fudge factor is already being maximized. Which means that we would be several years into a severe cooling trend before that was acknowledged.
2nd biggest argument against it....if it was really happening, then why the need for "talking points" to keep trying to sell it as real?
And another way: ask this, “lets assume for a moment the earth is warming and has been for a while. Therefore it is too warm, correct? To what temperature should we strive to cool the earth and what are you basing that number on, i.e. what is THE CORRECT temperature for the earth?
If CO2 were collecting infrared energy, ambient temperatures would rise.
Since the ambient temperature is well below freezing, there is only one other thing causing the snow and ice to melt. The bright yellow thingy thing in the sky.
It takes energy to raise temperatures in CO2. That's the infrared the article mentions. The problem is, while CO2 is collecting energy, it can warm up. At night, infrared radiation significantly drops. The warming drops. The surrounding gases vastly outnumber and are colder than the CO2, thus CO2 temperature drop to the same temperature as the other gases.
Salon to its readers:
The Earth is still warming. Who are you gonna believe, us or your lying frost-bitten extemities??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.